On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 12:42:26PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote: > So, why run aclocal and delete all those files unnecesarily? Even > though the package is exactly the same as with the simpler rules, it > smells like a source of bugs to me. Like if in the future aclocal-1.9 > stops being present in Debian, this will fail, even if the package > would compile otherwise. I expected this question. :-) There are several reasons for it. First of all, and most importantly IMO, I want all files to be compiled from source. As you can see from the rules (in particular the autoconf-archive part), it isn't actually a trivial matter to find out how to do that. I want users who feel like modifying the source to be able to recompile. That includes when they modify configure.in. For that, the autotools must be run, and I think it makes sense to have the "machine-readable build instructions" in debian/rules. There are a few more reasons, but I wrote about them on this list recently, and would probably bore many people when repeating, so I'll give a link to it instead: http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2006/02/msg00037.html > By dropping this, you could drop the dependencies on automake1.9, > libtool, autoconf-archive. (This is the linda warning. It's not > usually a good idea to depend on autoconf and the rest of the family). I know linda used to warn about this, but they stopped doing so after I asked them to. See bug #327057. At least on my system, it doesn't warn about it anymore. > About the description: > > This game is a clone of xjump, and provides all its features, plus some more: > * Multiplayer mode (up to four players, not networked) > * Smooth graphics possible (but xjump style as well) > > It also provides different themes, and OpenGL support is optional. Yes, these are good to include as well. Thanks. > Finally, the ELF file uses only 68KB, while the whole package uses 1,5 > MB of arch-independent files. It certainly looks as a candidate for > package and package-data splitting. What do you think about that? Sounds like a good idea, I hadn't thought about it. > BTW, I'm willing to sponsor the package just as it is right now, but > I'd like you to take into consideration this comments. I've just changed the package to include the comments. The new version is in the same place (http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/~shevek/debian/sdljump/). Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature